reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Interviewer and Professor discuss what is known about October 7, the broader context, and the ongoing political implications. - On October 7, the global picture is that roughly 1,200 people were killed, with about 400 combatants and about 800 civilians, according to authorities the professor cites. He notes he relies on UN Human Rights Council Commission of Inquiry, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch but cautions these bodies do not have perfect records. He maintains there is no compelling evidence that a significant portion of the deaths in Israel’s reaction to October 7 were the result of Israeli actions, and he says the deaths are overwhelmingly attributable to Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza. He states there is no evidence supporting the claim that Hamas weaponized rape on October 7. - Regarding rape allegations, the professor emphasizes that the UN mission distinguishes between rape and sexual violence; the UN Commission of Inquiry states there is no digital or photographic evidence of rape. Pamela Patton’s report looked at 5,000 photographs and 50 hours of digital evidence but concluded there was no direct digital or photographic evidence of sexual violence on October 7. He questions why, if such incidents occurred, witnesses did not produce photographic or digital proof, noting that in a conflict zone Israelis would typically photograph atrocities; he suggests eyewitness testimony often aligns with broader narratives about Israel, and argues that some eyewitness accounts come from sources that claim Israel is morally exemplary while also alleging atrocities. - The discussion then moves to the credibility of eyewitness reports. The professor argues that some eyewitness accounts “will tell you Israel is the most moral army in the world” while also suggesting Israel’s society is inbred and that Israeli soldiers form deep bonds in the army, which could influence narratives. He notes a broader pattern of people publishing favorable studies of Israel while denying atrocities. - On Hamas’s planning before October 7, the professor describes Gaza as an “inferno under the Israeli occupation,” with Gaza repeatedly described as a concentration camp by prominent figures since 2004 and 2008. He argues that by late 2023 Gaza was portrayed as facing international indifference, and he asserts that the belief that Gaza’s fate would be sealed by Saudi Arabia joining the Abraham Accords contributed to Hamas’s decision-making. He cites The Economist and UN commentary describing Gaza’s conditions well before October 7, including extreme unemployment (approximately 60% among Gaza’s young people) and a collapse of basic services. - The interviewer asks why violence occurred given various nonviolent and diplomatic avenues. The professor notes that Hamas had attempted diplomacy, including reports of seeking a two-state solution or a hudna, cooperation with human rights investigations after prior Israeli operations, and support for nonviolent movements like the Great March of Return. He claims Hamas’s efforts were ignored and emphasizes the blockade’s impact on Gaza. He argues that while Hamas was not saints, they engaged with diplomacy and international law before resorting to violence in the face of Gaza’s dire conditions. - The West Bank vs. Gaza comparison is discussed. The professor argues that the goal in Gaza differs from that in other contexts; whereas other actors may aim to subordinate, Israel’s long-term aim in Gaza is described as making Gaza unlivable and controlling the territory, with support from various Arab states. - The interviewer questions the historical legitimacy of Gaza and Palestinian statehood. The professor rejects attempts to deny Palestinian existence or redefine Gaza’s status, insisting Gaza’s people are Palestinian and Gaza is not part of the West Bank, while acknowledging the historical complexities. - On the UN Security Council resolution and the “board of peace,” the professor describes the resolution as endorsing the Trump peace plan and naming Donald Trump as head of the board of peace, with the board operating with sovereign powers in Gaza and lacking external accountability. He asserts that this effectively grants Trump control over Gaza and foresees rebuilding timelines; he argues that reconstruction would take decades under current conditions, given rubble, toxins, unexploded ordnance, and the scale of destruction. - The future of Gaza is described pessimistically: Gaza is depicted as “gone” in the sense of a prolonged, uninhabitable landscape under an administratively transitional framework that does not guarantee meaningful reconstruction. The professor contends that Arab states endorsed the resolution under pressure and that some leaders feared severe economic repercussions if they opposed it. - The discussion closes with reflections on who benefits from the resolution and the overall trajectory for Gaza, including strong skepticism about any imminent or credible path to durable peace given the political arrangements described and the perceived long-term consequences for the Palestinian people.

Speaker 0, an IDF soldier from Israel, is asked about the bombings in Gaza and the killing of children. The soldier admits to bombing Gaza in response to their attacks but claims ignorance about the reasons behind the initial bombings. The conversation then shifts to the history of Palestine and Israel, with the soldier acknowledging that Palestine existed before 1948 but asserting that it is now occupied by Israel. The soldier denies being Islamic and states that he doesn't know if innocent Palestinians are killed. The transcript abruptly ends.

I find it hard to believe the story about the recent events in Israel. The country is heavily fortified and surveilled, with IDF soldiers everywhere. However, there were protests against Bibi Netanyahu's actions, and now he has an emergency government. While I'm not saying Netanyahu knew about the incident, some questions need to be asked. Was there a stand down order for 6 hours? It's hard to believe considering the country's size. The IDF is everywhere, so it's legitimate to question if someone in the government told them to stand down.

Some individuals believe Hamas are freedom fighters, while others acknowledge their classification as a prescribed terrorist organization in the UK. One person stated the UK government made the wrong decision in classifying Hamas as such. Another stated that Israel, not Hamas, is the terrorist. One person's initial reaction to the October 7th invasion of Israel by Hamas was that it showed resistance against the occupation of Palestinians and was a beacon of hope. Another person expressed disgust at the unverified stories of 40 beheaded babies. One person stated that the continued existence of Israel is a war crime. One person stated they don't believe Hamas was responsible for the invasion and felt unqualified to comment. Another stated they haven't seen anything to prove the invasion actually happened or is correct. One person stated Hamas are freedom fighters fighting for the right to their land and self-defense, and are not terrorists.

In this video, the speakers discuss various topics related to Hamas, terrorism, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They debate whether Hamas is a terrorist organization and express different opinions on the United States military. They also touch on the issue of stolen land and the possibility of Israelis returning to their ancestral countries. The conversation becomes heated when discussing a specific event on October 7th and the Holocaust. The speakers emphasize the importance of context and education in shaping society. The video ends with a farewell and a mention of a significant event that occurred that night.

In this controversial video, the speaker discusses the events that took place in Israel on October 7th. They believe it was an inside job due to various reasons. They mention that the Israeli government confiscated weapons from security teams in Gaza communities on September 1st, and that reports of increased tensions on the Gaza border were ignored by the army on September 10th. The speaker questions how the surveillance system failed to detect the attack and criticizes the response time of the military. They express concerns about the competence of the IDF and question the need for American aid in fighting against Gaza.

Speaker 0 states that “this right here was always the plan from day zero, and they just told us,” signaling that the plan has been in motion from the beginning and that the participants were informed about it. Speaker 1 asks the group to explain the plan in detail: how much it will cost, where the money will come from, and who will reward the contracts. The question centers on funding sources, cost, and accountability for contracts. Speaker 2 responds by saying the money-raising part is “the easy part,” but emphasizes that the real focus is the master plan. They say they are working with a group of people who have been developing master plans for two years, implying a long preexisting framework behind the project. They assert that “we have plans already. We have a master plan already,” and mention that Jared has been pushing this and that they are working together on it. They claim that if the world saw the progress so far, they would be impressed. Speaker 0 interjects with a clarification question about the two-year timeline, noting a perceived gap in the explanation and pressing for details on what was being done during that period. Speaker 3 explains the timing more specifically: the material was filmed before October 7 and released later, indicating that the planning had been underway prior to that date. They suggest that this means “they were working on the plans before October 7.” Speaker 0 adds, “So that means that everything else was a script that they already wanted to implement the whole time,” implying that prior material or discourse could have been designed to align with the planned actions. Speaker 3 references Charlie Kirk and asks, “Was there a stand down order?” This raises a question about whether a directive to halt actions existed. Speaker 0 questions the existence of a stand-down order, asserting that “Israel’s the side of new size New Jersey,” then shares a personal observation from a helicopter ride from Jerusalem to the Gaza border, noting the distance as forty-five minutes, and mentions that “Six hours. They’re live streaming the killing of Jews.” They pose the question of whether someone in the government ordered a stand-down. Speaker 3 notes that “the sixty minute episode aired on October 19,” and that the material “was filmed immediately after October 7.” They add that the filming occurred “days after the Israel cease fire deal completion, October 10.” Speaker 0 reiterates the sequence by summarizing that the events were filmed immediately after October 7 and occurred in the days following the cease-fire agreement on October 10.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they are an IDF soldier. Speaker 1 confirms that they are. Speaker 0 questions the IDF's actions in bombing Gaza and killing children. Speaker 1 claims to not have knowledge about it, but states that they bomb Gaza in response to being bombed. Speaker 0 asks about the reasons behind the initial bombings. Speaker 1 admits to not knowing the information. Speaker 0 mentions that before 1948, the region was called Palestine and argues that it is still occupied Palestine. Speaker 1 doesn't dispute it. Speaker 0 expresses a desire for more children to be harmed, and Speaker 1 responds with aggression. The conversation ends abruptly.

Some individuals interviewed believe Hamas are freedom fighters, not terrorists, and are resisting occupation and fighting for their land. One person called the Hamas invasion of Israel on October 7th "a beacon of hope." Another stated the continued existence of Israel is a war crime. One interviewee expressed doubt that Hamas was responsible for the invasion and admitted to needing more information to comment. Another found the unverified reporting of "40 beheaded babies" disgusting.

Speaker 0 asserts that Bezalel Smotrich and Ben Gavir are “literally talking about exterminating the entire population of Gaza.” Speaker 1 counters that they are not talking about extermination. Speaker 0 insists the statements are brazen, up front, and what they actually want to do. Speaker 0 adds that Hamas is involved in a separate context. Speaker 0 says, “The West Bank had nothing to do with what happened on October 7, but they're annexing that land anyway. They're raining terror on innocent people, innocent Palestinians.” Speaker 0 concedes, “I am willing to admit, because it's the truth, that what Hamas did on October 7 was a fucking atrocity,” specifically mentioning killing innocent people. Speaker 1 challenges acknowledgement of atrocities against civilians in Gaza. Speaker 0 asks about a hospital being tapped; Speaker 1 responds that it’s an old terrorist trick and they do it “all the time.” Speaker 0 asks whether the IDF's action was wrong. Speaker 1 concedes, “I'm sure they have committed what we would call war crimes, as every army does in every war.” Speaker 0 notes, “Including our own.” Speaker 1 agrees, giving the Civil War example: Sherman burned Atlanta and Vad, arguing that despite brutality, the North were the good guys fighting slavery, and also noting Israel is fighting to survive and is the front line in the Western world. Speaker 0 disputes this, saying much of the problems in the Middle East come from an expansionist policy and that if Israel wasn’t trying to continue expanding, they would not be dealing with the enemies they’re dealing with. Speaker 1 disagrees that they ever were expanding, arguing they “were attacked” and that they “never been trying to expand.” Speaker 0 claims Israel is trying to annex the West Bank, southern Lebanon, and Syria, and argues they have succeeded in doing so. Speaker 1 says these are lands where they were attacked from when Israel became a country in 1947; he claims Israel said, “we will accept half a loaf,” and asserts they had as much right to that land as anybody, with a historical presence since a thousand BC when King David had a lineage. Speaker 0 dismisses this lineage-based argument as irrelevant to the present. Speaker 1 counters that it’s relevant, and asserts that the notion of wiping out innocent people merely because one’s ancestors lived there centuries ago is not acceptable. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 calling Palestinians colonizers, and Speaker 1 arguing they are not colonizers; they assert that Israel is annexing land, which, in their view, is described as colonization.

A speaker states that a genocide is occurring. Another speaker acknowledges the emotive nature of the word "genocide" and says Israelis claim they are only targeting Hamas, not civilians, through planned military incursions. The first speaker disputes this, stating the bombs are not being dropped in a targeted way. They claim an entire neighborhood was leveled, including the houses of their social media manager, estimating 100 deaths. The second speaker notes that Israelis deny genocide, saying strikes in Gaza are strategic and target Hamas. The first speaker insists this is not the case.

I find it hard to believe the story about the recent conflict in Israel. The country is heavily fortified and surveilled, with IDF soldiers everywhere. Israel was on the brink of civil war due to protests against Netanyahu, but now he has an emergency government. I'm not saying Netanyahu knew about the situation, but there are questions to be asked. Was there a stand down order for 6 hours? It's hard to believe that in a country the size of New Jersey, they couldn't respond sooner. The whole country is the IDF, so it's legitimate to question if someone in the government told them to stand down.

The speaker blamed Hamas for the atrocities and emphasized the need to gather information. They acknowledged Israel's frustration and recommended providing access for investigation.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 where he is from, and Speaker 1 replies that he is from Israel and served in the IDF. Speaker 1 mentions not counting how many Palestinians he has encountered and talks about Gaza disappearing. Speaker 0 inquires if Speaker 1 has ever seen a Palestinian child, to which Speaker 1 responds that he has seen 5 and jokes about looking inexperienced.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss a sequence of war-related scenarios, making provocative comparisons and extreme claims about Israel, Hamas, and broader conflicts. Speaker 0 asserts that if Mexico occupied their land and then decided to cut off electricity and control inputs, it would be akin to Israel’s actions against Palestinians; he imagines a scenario where an occupying force could slaughter people for allegedly throwing rocks. Speaker 1 counters by noting Israel has nuclear weapons and that the world’s military power backs Israel. Speaker 0 asserts that Israel has nuclear weapons and that they do not use them, while Speaker 1 suggests Hamas would use a nuclear weapon in seconds if they had one, stating three seconds as the answer because it’s in Hamas’s charter. Speaker 0 asks how anyone could know that, and Speaker 1 cites the charter as justification. Speaker 0 argues that Hamas would be martyrs if they used a nuclear weapon against Israel, describing Hamas as having a death-cult view and noting that they strap suicide vests sometimes on children. He says people cannot see the moral difference between Hamas and Israel. Speaker 1 pushes back, saying they are not talking about extermination and notes that Basilel Smotrich and Ben Gavir have talked about exterminating the entire population of Gaza, while Speaker 0 claims the West Bank is another example and states that despite the West Bank having nothing to do with October 7, it is being annexed and that terror is being rained on innocent Palestinians, driving them from their homes. Speaker 0 acknowledges that what Hamas did on October 7 was a “fucking atrocity,” killing innocent people. He says he is willing to admit that atrocity, but he emphasizes his belief that the atrocities against civilians in Gaza are also significant. Speaker 1 concedes that the IDF and all armies commit war crimes in war and that “all wars are going to have atrocity.” Speaker 0 asks for acknowledgment of a double tap on a hospital; Speaker 1 describes the hospital incident as an old terrorist trick and confirms that such acts occur in war, but he emphasizes that all wars involve atrocities. The exchange references first responders and a vague memory of the event, with Speaker 0 asserting that first responders’ deaths and hospital strikes are part of the ongoing discussion, while Speaker 1 frames them within the broader context of war crimes by all sides. Overall, the dialogue juxtaposes occupation, nuclear deterrence, and moral atrocity claims on both sides, with explicit references to statements by Israeli political figures, Hamas, and the general conduct of war by all parties.

The speaker addresses the use of artificial intelligence or Lavender by the IDF in identifying Hamas targets. They state they are not on top of all the details of what’s happening in Israel and that their bias is to defer to Israel. They say it’s not for us to second guess everything. They conclude that broadly the IDF gets to decide what it wants to do and that they’re broadly in the right.

Speaker 0 argues that the Palestinian people are oppressed and suffer under the occupation. They acknowledge Hamas is an armed group, but they describe Hamas as a reaction to signals of injustice and oppression by Israel. They assert that you cannot talk about peace without justice for Palestine and express a desire to know how the other person addresses that claim. Speaker 1 responds by reframing the situation as a political conflict, stating that while there is ideology involved, the core is colonization. They describe a situation where “a fence” surrounds the people, drones fly above, and “everything is taken over there.” They insist that the people in question are not there voluntarily and describe the people breaking out of their camp as something that provokes anger, calling that a “very peculiar viewpoint.” They further claim that Hamas is largely supported and founded by Mossad, arguing that it was very handy to have Hamas to respond to reactions in the area. Speaker 0 asks for evidence to support that claim. Speaker 1 confirms that evidence exists and says they will post it on Twitter after the conversation. They add that the evidence can also be found from the Israeli government or authorities, describing it as a very specific source.

The speaker was asked why not blame Hamas for the atrocities. They explained their mission was to gather information, not assign blame. The speaker acknowledged the frustration of the people of Israel and emphasized the need for the government to provide access for further investigation.

Speaker 0: It's important to note that this is your opinion. Israel's Hamas has reiterated their stance, claiming otherwise. Speaker 1: May I interrupt? We need to clarify that there is no evidence yet. It's crucial to understand that Hamas has said many things before, but now we have proof. How have we proven it? I hope you will show it too. We have recorded conversations between members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which clearly demonstrate where exactly this rocket is going. So, it's not just Hamas and Israel. Each side denies the other's claims. Speaker 0: I understand your point, but we won't be able to resolve it here.

Speaker 0 claims there were internal problems within the IDF related to the October 7th attacks. They allege soldiers were told to stand down, suggesting "something bad happened" and "it was an inside thing." Speaker 0 states they have inside knowledge of Israeli border security and operations, asserting the breakdown on October 7th wasn't due to mistakes. They believe Israel will have to confront these internal issues. Speaker 0 also claims the American people are growing tired of constant focus on Israel, despite Speaker 0's personal support for the country and past involvement with Israeli intelligence. Speaker 1 expresses shock at the stand down claim and emphasizes the sensitivity of the issue.

- Shortly before the attack, the government allegedly ordered the removal of all military presence from the area, giving Hamas a “free pass” to enter and begin their operation. In the following videos, former Israeli Defense Force (IDF) members warn that something very concerning is happening in Israel. - Afat Fenningzon reports, dated 10/07/2023, that Israeli defense forces around Gaza were instead positioned around the West Bank due to security concerns, leaving the Gaza envelope unoccupied. He says about 60 to 80% of that area was left without IDF forces. He notes that a year earlier there was a Gaza operation to prepare for such events, and ongoing trainings for these scenarios exist. This raises questions about Israeli intelligence: two years ago there were successful deployments of underground barriers with sensors to alert on terrorist breaches, yet there was zero response to the border and fence breaching. He emphasizes that Israel has a highly advanced military and questions how there could be no indication of what was coming, given that a cat moving near a fence would trigger forces. He asks, “What happened to the strongest army in the world? How come border crossings were wide open?” He describes the chain of events as very unusual and not typical for the Israeli defense system. He calls the current government highly corrupt and asserts the previous one was no better, stating his goal is to expose evil forces. He characterizes the surprise attack as seemingly a planned operation on all fronts and, if he were a conspiracy theorist, would say it feels like the work of the deep state. He suggests the people of Israel and the people of Palestine have been sold to “higher powers,” acknowledging how difficult the reality is to fathom. - Speaker 2 questions how the strongest army and the most sophisticated intelligence in the world could allow a few hundred Hamas fighters to enter Israel and cause the attack, while Hamas fighters did not meet any Israeli resistance in the area. He asserts it is not logical and implies there is more behind it, suggesting Israel sacrificed its own people and civilians on the Gaza border, removed protection and the army, and allowed Hamas to carry out their actions. He reiterates that Israel has the most sophisticated intelligence and a strong army, yet such an incursion occurred, implying hidden mechanisms or plans at work.

The Israelis spread lies about burning babies and rape after October 7th, but there is no evidence to support these claims. Despite the lack of evidence, there is extensive proof. The conversation becomes heated, with one person urging the other to calm down and not sink to a lower level. The mention of Hamas's actions on social media is made before the discussion is interrupted.

In this video, the speakers discuss the bombing of a hospital in Gaza. The first speaker reports that Israel is responsible for the attack, while the second speaker presents video footage from Hamas that supports this claim. However, the United States Pentagon denies Israel's involvement and suggests that Hamas accidentally fired the missiles. The conversation ends with the speakers agreeing that Israel is still to blame due to their blockade preventing Hamas from obtaining proper missiles. The video concludes with a goodnight message.

Speaker 0, an IDF soldier from Israel, is asked about the IDF bombing Gaza and killing children. The soldier claims to not have knowledge about it and states that they only bombed Gaza in response to being bombed themselves. When asked about the reasons behind the bombings, the soldier admits to not knowing. The conversation then shifts to the history of Palestine and Israel, with the soldier denying that Palestine existed before 1948. The other person argues that Palestine still exists and is currently occupied. Tensions rise as the soldier threatens the other person, claiming to kill every Palestinian they see.

Speaker 0 asserts that “What happened in October 7 was an Israeli setup,” and questions whether Benjamin Netanyahu deliberately boosted Hamas to prevent a Palestinian state. The question is framed as a direct challenge: “Yeah. Sure. He deliberately and systematically even even told this on record. Whoever wants to avoid the threat of a two state solution has to support my policy of paying protection money to the Hamas.” The removal of ambiguity is emphasized by the speaker’s phrasing that this was done “with the permission of our prime minister” and involved letting Qatar transfer a huge amount of money in cash, “probably more than $1,400,000,000,” with the claimed effect of increasing Hamas’s power. Speaker 0 then shifts to interrogate a separate line of inquiry, asking whether there was a “stand down order,” repeating the question: “Was there a stand down order? Six hours? I don’t believe it.” The speaker emphasizes realism by labeling the question as legitimate and non-conspiratorial: “Was did somebody in the government say stand down? That is a legitimate non conspiracy question.” The closing remark asserts a collective identity and responsibility: “The whole country is the IDF. The whole country is.”